Supreme Court CaseCiter
Открыть в Telegram
4 904
Подписчики
Нет данных24 часа
-87 дней
-1330 дней
Загрузка данных...
Похожие каналы
Облако тегов
Входящие и исходящие упоминания
---
---
---
---
---
---
Привлечение подписчиков
сентябрь '26сент. '26
сентябрь '26
+45
в 0 каналах
август '26
+137
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '26
+105
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '26
+29
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '26
+33
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '26
+33
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '26
+27
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '26
+35
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '26
+37
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '25
+56
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '25
+75
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '25
+28
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '25
+77
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '25
+112
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '25
+87
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '25
+63
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '25
+100
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '25
+93
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '25
+107
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '25
+36
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '25
+78
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '24
+193
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '24
+199
в 1 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '24
+286
в 1 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '24
+427
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '24
+439
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '24
+433
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '24
+232
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '24
+269
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '24
+250
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '24
+289
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '24
+265
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '24
+244
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '23
+297
в 1 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '23
+125
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '23
+166
в 1 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '23
+933
в 0 каналах
| Дата | Привлечение подписчиков | Упоминания | Каналы | |
| 25 сентября | +2 | |||
| 24 сентября | 0 | |||
| 23 сентября | 0 | |||
| 22 сентября | 0 | |||
| 21 сентября | +1 | |||
| 20 сентября | +2 | |||
| 19 сентября | +1 | |||
| 18 сентября | +1 | |||
| 17 сентября | +1 | |||
| 16 сентября | +5 | |||
| 15 сентября | 0 | |||
| 14 сентября | +1 | |||
| 13 сентября | 0 | |||
| 12 сентября | +2 | |||
| 11 сентября | +2 | |||
| 10 сентября | +4 | |||
| 09 сентября | +2 | |||
| 08 сентября | 0 | |||
| 07 сентября | +6 | |||
| 06 сентября | +1 | |||
| 05 сентября | +1 | |||
| 04 сентября | +3 | |||
| 03 сентября | +3 | |||
| 02 сентября | +4 | |||
| 01 сентября | +3 |
Посты канала
📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Update: Though we have not got a response from them on it, the sentence is now removed from
@LiveLawIndia
article. 🙂
🔗 View on X
| 2 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Just a thought !
On 22 March 2024, #SupremeCourt refused to stay the Election Commission Appointment Law.
Justice Dipankar Datta was part of that bench too, along with Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
The question no one is asking is this:
If Justice Datta had a prima facie opinion on the neutrality issue, why he did not express that view in that order?
Was that not argued by the petitioners then?
Had he done that, the Act could have been stayed on that very ground.
What do you think 😇
🔗 View on X | 69 |
| 3 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Yes, of course and Para 12 says these are important questions and deserves to be answered by CB. To be fair to Sharma J, he answered the issue before the bench quite straightly. Datta J made prima facie opinion on neutrality, yet said that these are just for the purpose of
🔗 View on X | 57 |
| 4 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
"The submission was not as a criticism of the Collegium system or regarding the role of the executive in the appointment of Judges. In my opinion, it was a submission to the effect that if the Constitution Bench has held that the presence of outsiders in the collegium as violative of doctrine of separation of powers, a similar independence should be read in the executive also and the rules framed under Article 324 be not declared void on the ground either that it does not have any outsider in the Committee of selection or there is pre-dominance of only executive in the committee of selection."
This is Para 7. This is clearly a recording of submission by SG. He said that SG's criticism of NJAC and collegium and all is effectively this submission.
This does not, in any way, be read as his prima facie opinion on this contention.
🔗 View on X | 50 |
| 5 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Because the issue before the Bench was whether to refer or not to refer. You may read the order yourself.
🔗 View on X | 34 |
| 6 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
We have only pointed out that Datta J has only made prima facie observation and has not held anything as claimed by
@pbhushan1
! You are entitled to your own perceptions and we have not commented on that.
🔗 View on X | 30 |
| 7 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
The issue was whether it falls under 145(3). If yes, it should go to CB of 5 judges. If no, 2J Bench can continue hearing it. Datta J said no. Sharma J said yes. But then together they said refer to 5J since 3J bench will only delay the case. CJI can anyway do this.
🔗 View on X | 27 |
| 8 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Just need a clarification only on one sentence in your article (screenshot attached).
Can you please quote the para from Justice SC Sharma's opinion where he said that "the Selection Committee cannot be held to be biased merely because it is executive-heavy." ?
These words come in Para 7, but that is only recording of contention raised by SG.
In Para 12, he only says that non-inclusion of neutral selector is an important question and deserves to be decided by CB.
Most of the observations, in our reading, made by Justice Sharma is squarely on the issue: to Refer or not to Refer?
But we are sure you can clarify this.
🔗 View on X | 40 |
| 9 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
#SupremeCourt to conduct AOR exams in December 2026. But only for those who are eligible to re-appear !
🔗 View on X | 45 |
| 10 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Immoral and unethical conduct of accused by itself would not justify a rape conviction, says #SupremeCourt !
🔗 View on X | 76 |
| 11 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
A girl filed rape case against man.
In her evidence, she admitted travelling with him for 5-6 days, but stated that she did not give consent to have sex.
#SupremeCourt has now acquitted the man.
This judgment, particularly this observation, is an interesting read.
🔗 View on X | 68 |
| 12 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
So #SupremeCourt, after we posted this, has removed the name from its home-page too and replaced it with R vs. E ! 😇
🔗 View on X | 52 |
| 13 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI v. STATE OF PUNJAB
https://
caseciter.in/sci-judgments/
documents/ent_tqqtTvrqkaJm?src=x
…
🔗 View on X | 52 |
| 14 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
It is unfortunate that the #SupremeCourt website team is not complying with its order to hide name of the parties in a matrimonial-POCSO-Child Custody case. In Judgment, the name is hidden. But these names are shown in the SCI portal home-page. 🤦
🔗 View on X | 63 |
| 15 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
These observations by #SupremeCourt made in this case might affect many child-custody cases in which a father is facing criminal charges (especially POCSO) . x.com/CiteCase/statu…
🔗 View on X | 71 |
| 16 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
A great relief for Fathers facing fake POCSO allegations while also fighting for Child Custody !
#SupremeCourt has endorsed the Kerala High Court view that the mere registration of POCSO case should not by itself give rise to an inference that the allegation is true, and should x.com/CiteCase/statu…
🔗 View on X | 66 |
| 17 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
These are observations from two #SupremeCourt judgments (2 different 2J Benches) delivered this week.
The yellow one makes it easy to defeat child custody claims by filing a fake POCSO case against a father. The green one has a solution to offer.
As a judge, which one will you follow?
🔗 View on X | 71 |
| 18 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
If you are a man who is fighting child custody case and then you faced a fake POCSO case, this #SupremeCourt judgment is for you.
🔗 View on X | 106 |
| 19 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
Trial Courts cannot direct that the convict in murder cases shall “remain in prison till rest of their life”, reiterates #SupremeCourt
🔗 View on X | 101 |
| 20 | 📢 New Post by @CiteCase
NAVAL KISHORE & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB
https://
caseciter.in/sci-judgments/
documents/ent_GtPQ8LxX4BZ9?src=x
…
🔗 View on X | 82 |
